(July 8, 2012 at 11:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No I said I know my memory is accurate because I can relate the broken keyboard i.e. evidence to the memory in my brain. You twisted my words.
Here's your argument:
1) Break a keyboard.
2) Observe a broken keyboard.
3) Remember the features and circumstances of the keyboard you broke.
4) Compare the features and circumstances of the broken keyboard you are observing.
5) If they match up, then your memory is accurate.
Step 3 is where you assume the thing you're trying to prove. Circular reasoning.
Quote:I don't have to deal with any of this intellectual dissonance. It's irrational, pointless, unevidenced wishful thinking that YOU will have to prove.
Ah, the old shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
If you can't give evidence for your beliefs, fine. Just don't pretend that you're being intellectually consistent as an evidentialist.
Quote:I refuse to consider any longer the laughable baseless assertion that the universe came into being just then, and that I magically wrote this without ever writing it. There is not a shred of evidence to even consider such a possibility.
You sir have a loose screw.
I'm not claiming that the universe came into being just now. I'm claiming that your basis for believing that it didn't has no evidence.
Do you see the difference? I'm not saying you should reject your belief that the universe didn't just now come into existence. I'm saying that the fact that you hold this belief without evidence for it suggests that you haven't thought through the implications of evidentialism.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
